I'll occasionally quiz some of my high-schoolers to see how much they know about cars -- brands, technology, whether or not they can change a tire. My sample size is very small, and not representative of American teens as a whole, but what I've seen is disheartening. Most of my students couldn't tell you that Subaru is Japanese, that Kia is Korean, or that Volvo is Swedish. They don't know how hard Volvo worked to distinguish itself with the safest cars on the road.
When I was a teen (in the '80s), cars from different manufacturers and different nations had very distinct qualities. They looked different, sounded different, and felt different. Driving a car was a glimpse into the character of the country where it was made. My Italian car was sexy, not necessarily reliable or well-made, but exhilarating to drive. My friend's Japanese car was not sexy, was extremely reliable, had no interest in impressing anyone with its appearance, and never attempted to increase the driver's pulse.
As time has marched on, cars have gotten increasingly generic. It's no surprise that a Volvo may have an identity crisis -- a Swedish company, now owned by Ford, sharing major components with many models of Ford, possibly built in Belgium. My Subaru came from Indiana. My VW was designed in the US, but was built in Mexico with an engine from Germany. Land Rover? Depending upon the year, a used Rover could be a BMW or a Ford...and now it's part of the Indian Tata group. Rolls-Royce and Bentley, formerly manufactured in the same plant, are now owned by BMW and Volkswagen. The new compact Volvo C30 sold in the US is based on Europe's Ford Focus. The traditional attributes of Italian and German cars could scarcely be more different, and yet new Lamborghinis are really Audis. Same goes for American and Japanese cars, but the Pontiac Vibe is a Toyota Matrix. This must be problematic for the companies' marketing departments. In the past, people bought Volvos because they were dull but safe. Now they're no safer than many other cars on the road, yet they're trying to maintain their reputation for safety. Manufacturers are increasingly building cars on a generic platform and then making minor tweaks to specific models to provide the car with its historical attributes.
Perhaps today's automotive products are as much a reflection of the differences in their places of manufacture and their parent companies as they were in the past.
As the planet shrinks and the countries become more similar, the cars get more similar as well. The cars lose their distinctive national flavor because the manufacturers are soulless interchangeable multinational corporations.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Dyson's ridiculously misleading ads
While we're on the topic of emissions and contribution to global climate change:
In a recent TV commercial, high-end vacuum manufacturer Dyson brags about its eco-friendly solid-state motors by asserting that "as the carbon brushes wear down (on old-fashioned motors), they emit carbon particles, which is bad for the environment." They've repeated this claim on their website (link below).
With their motors, on the other hand, " no carbon brushes means no carbon emissions".
I'll admit that most home appliances (washers, dryers, toasters, blenders, ovens) are fundamentally the same machines they were 50 years ago, and I applaud any manufacturer working to update the underlying technology and improve the machines. However, there's a problem with their ads. The carbon they're discussing is graphite, the same stuff you'll find in a pencil, a bottle of lock lubricant, or in carbon fiber body panels. It's a stable solid form of carbon (like diamond), not a gas that will drift up into the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Using Dyson's logic, we should all switch to pens, because we all know that "as the tips of pencils wear down, they emit carbon particles, which is bad for the environment."
I don't know whether there's a disconnect between the engineering and marketing departments, or whether Dyson is knowingly making misleading claims. Either way, their advertising does not fill me with confidence in the quality of their product.
More questionable statements:
--they claim that their impellers spin at 600 MPH. Last time I checked, spin rate is measured in RPM and not MPH -- the impeller isn't traveling anywhere. Perhaps they're measuring the distance traveled by a molecule in the outermost edge of the impeller? If so, then a molecule halfway between the axle and the edge will be traveling at 300 MPH, and the middle of the axle will be traveling at 0 mph. Why not double the diameter of the impeller and keep spinning it at the same RPM? Then they could (just as misleadingly) advertise impellers that spin at 1200 MPH.
--they assert that traditional motors have 2D (2-dimensional) impellers (which, of course, could be made of solid gold as cheaply as any other material, because we all know that 2-dimensional objects have no volume). In their pictures of old vs new motors, the impeller on the old motor very clearly has a length, a width, AND a height, for a total of 3 dimensions. :) Yes, I understand that they're trying to describe the vanes on the impeller, but the language they're using has room for improvement.
I believe that Dyson products feature numerous innovations, but why not describe them in terms of practical effect? The lack of brushes makes the motors more reliable. The impeller is probably more efficient. The solid-state design has additional benefits, so describe them!
Dyson's silly science
In a recent TV commercial, high-end vacuum manufacturer Dyson brags about its eco-friendly solid-state motors by asserting that "as the carbon brushes wear down (on old-fashioned motors), they emit carbon particles, which is bad for the environment." They've repeated this claim on their website (link below).
With their motors, on the other hand, " no carbon brushes means no carbon emissions".
I'll admit that most home appliances (washers, dryers, toasters, blenders, ovens) are fundamentally the same machines they were 50 years ago, and I applaud any manufacturer working to update the underlying technology and improve the machines. However, there's a problem with their ads. The carbon they're discussing is graphite, the same stuff you'll find in a pencil, a bottle of lock lubricant, or in carbon fiber body panels. It's a stable solid form of carbon (like diamond), not a gas that will drift up into the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect. Using Dyson's logic, we should all switch to pens, because we all know that "as the tips of pencils wear down, they emit carbon particles, which is bad for the environment."
I don't know whether there's a disconnect between the engineering and marketing departments, or whether Dyson is knowingly making misleading claims. Either way, their advertising does not fill me with confidence in the quality of their product.
More questionable statements:
--they claim that their impellers spin at 600 MPH. Last time I checked, spin rate is measured in RPM and not MPH -- the impeller isn't traveling anywhere. Perhaps they're measuring the distance traveled by a molecule in the outermost edge of the impeller? If so, then a molecule halfway between the axle and the edge will be traveling at 300 MPH, and the middle of the axle will be traveling at 0 mph. Why not double the diameter of the impeller and keep spinning it at the same RPM? Then they could (just as misleadingly) advertise impellers that spin at 1200 MPH.
--they assert that traditional motors have 2D (2-dimensional) impellers (which, of course, could be made of solid gold as cheaply as any other material, because we all know that 2-dimensional objects have no volume). In their pictures of old vs new motors, the impeller on the old motor very clearly has a length, a width, AND a height, for a total of 3 dimensions. :) Yes, I understand that they're trying to describe the vanes on the impeller, but the language they're using has room for improvement.
I believe that Dyson products feature numerous innovations, but why not describe them in terms of practical effect? The lack of brushes makes the motors more reliable. The impeller is probably more efficient. The solid-state design has additional benefits, so describe them!
Dyson's silly science
Scooters are gross polluters?
Have you seen the newspaper and TV articles asserting that a scooter pollutes more than an SUV? Shocking! Sounds like we should all drive around in SUVs...until you take a closer look at the testing methodology.
1) Pollution in these tests is measured in parts per million -- in other words, what percentage of the exhaust is pollution? They ignore the fact that a 50cc (or even 150cc) scooter produces a much smaller volume of exhaust than a 3000-5000cc (3-5 liter) SUV. Why not a test that shows total amount of pollutants leaving the exhaust pipe of each vehicle? Ten is less than twenty, but ten percent of Bill Gates' net worth is substantially greater than twenty percent of mine.
2) Not all pollutants are created equal. The tests lump together unburned hydrocarbons, CO, and CO2. 2-stroke engines are designed primarily for performance -- to produce lots of power with a little engine -- and unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust are one of the unfortunate side effects. What are unburned hydrocarbons? Gasoline that wasn't burned by the engine. Those wavy vapors you can see emanating from a gas station on a warm day? Those are unburned hydrocarbons too. CARB (California's emissions agency) worries about unburned hydrocarbons, because, in warm sunny conditions, these can turn into smog. However, without this warmth and direct sunlight, smog does not form. The unburned hydrocarbons find their way up into the atmosphere, where they break down into carbon dioxide -- just as they would have if they'd been burned by the engine.
If you're worried about your carbon footprint or global climate change, then pick the vehicle that will take you farthest on a gallon of gas. If you live in a location where smog is a recurring problem, pick a 4-stroke scooter, preferably one that has fuel injection and a catalyst exhaust. But don't be fooled into thinking that your scooter is a gross polluter -- in terms of total emissions into the environment, your little 2-wheeler is still better than an SUV. And don't forget bicycling or walking!
Misguided article from Portland paper
1) Pollution in these tests is measured in parts per million -- in other words, what percentage of the exhaust is pollution? They ignore the fact that a 50cc (or even 150cc) scooter produces a much smaller volume of exhaust than a 3000-5000cc (3-5 liter) SUV. Why not a test that shows total amount of pollutants leaving the exhaust pipe of each vehicle? Ten is less than twenty, but ten percent of Bill Gates' net worth is substantially greater than twenty percent of mine.
2) Not all pollutants are created equal. The tests lump together unburned hydrocarbons, CO, and CO2. 2-stroke engines are designed primarily for performance -- to produce lots of power with a little engine -- and unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust are one of the unfortunate side effects. What are unburned hydrocarbons? Gasoline that wasn't burned by the engine. Those wavy vapors you can see emanating from a gas station on a warm day? Those are unburned hydrocarbons too. CARB (California's emissions agency) worries about unburned hydrocarbons, because, in warm sunny conditions, these can turn into smog. However, without this warmth and direct sunlight, smog does not form. The unburned hydrocarbons find their way up into the atmosphere, where they break down into carbon dioxide -- just as they would have if they'd been burned by the engine.
If you're worried about your carbon footprint or global climate change, then pick the vehicle that will take you farthest on a gallon of gas. If you live in a location where smog is a recurring problem, pick a 4-stroke scooter, preferably one that has fuel injection and a catalyst exhaust. But don't be fooled into thinking that your scooter is a gross polluter -- in terms of total emissions into the environment, your little 2-wheeler is still better than an SUV. And don't forget bicycling or walking!
Misguided article from Portland paper
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Quest for the perfect scooter
For several years now, I've been trying to find the perfect scooter. I've gone through a half-dozen different models, and I think I've finally found a great one.
My criteria for "perfect", developed over some time, and after trial and error:
--great reliability
--great performance
--good parts availability
--enough performance to go 55 or 60 in a pinch
--twist-and-go (better for around town)
--great handling (acceleration and braking)
--low emissions
--as lightweight as possible (for improved handling)
Which scooter did I choose? More to follow.
My criteria for "perfect", developed over some time, and after trial and error:
--great reliability
--great performance
--good parts availability
--enough performance to go 55 or 60 in a pinch
--twist-and-go (better for around town)
--great handling (acceleration and braking)
--low emissions
--as lightweight as possible (for improved handling)
Which scooter did I choose? More to follow.
Sexy and Italian
For the second time in six months, I spotted an exotic Italian car in the parking lot of a local home-improvement store. The first time, it was a Ferrari 246 Dino GT at the Home Depot in Bellevue; this time, it was a Maserati in Mount Vernon. When I saw the Dino, I thought "this is probably the worst vehicle to take to a home improvement store. It won't hold a sheet of plywood; it'll hardly hold a box of screws!" When the phenomenon repeated itself last week with the Maserati, I was forced to wonder if there was a connection. I think I've figured it out:
Guys who go to Lowe's and Home Depot probably enjoy tinkering on their homes, and anyone who owns a vintage Italian exotic car must also be handy with the repairs. A tinkerer is a tinkerer, whether working on a leaky toilet or an out-of-sync carb?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)